sas_history_lookup

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With only readOnlyHint=true supplied, the description does add real behavioral context: the 1 s trace threshold means sub-second runs appear only in the plan cache, which explains a non-obvious result asymmetry. However, it never states what the tool returns in the non-plan-cache case or the shape of the response, and the sentence trails off with an unbalanced quote, leaving the behavior incompletely disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description opens with a question rather than the action, then spends most of its length documenting a `plan` field using RST-style markup and ends mid-thought with a stray quotation mark. Space is allocated to output details while the core action and parameters go unexplained.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, yet it describes only the plan-cache branch and not the local-query-history branch the question promises. With an undeclared `database` parameter and no explanation of what a negative hit looks like, an agent cannot confidently invoke or interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. The `sql` argument is only implied by the question ('this SQL'), and the `database` parameter — which presumably scopes the lookup — is never mentioned at all; matching semantics (exact text vs parameterized form) are also left undefined.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is phrased as a question, 'Is this SQL ... in the cluster's plan cache or the local query history?', which does convey a lookup/classification purpose for SAS-submitted SQL, but it never states a verb+resource declaratively and never names related siblings (query_history, sql_editor_history, query_history_event) that an agent could confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use or when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The only situational remark ('when the statement isn't in its list') describes a downstream UI action taken by the editor, not how the agent should decide to call this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.